Meta-analysis2015Industry fundedOpen access

Funded in part by National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), a contractor to the Beef Checkoff

A review and meta-analysis of prospective studies of red and processed meat, meat cooking methods, heme iron, heterocyclic amines and prostate cancer

Bylsma LC, Alexander DD

Nutrition journal · 61 citations

Review labels

Industry funded

Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.

How it was studied

Design
Meta-analysis (indexed by PubMed)
Studied in
People
Main outcome
Clinical events such as disease or death
Intake measured by
Not stated

Who paid for it

Funding
Industry funded
Industry group
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Industry group
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), a contractor to the Beef Checkoff

Based on 2 listed funder(s).

Publication

Published
2015-12-01 · Nutr J · vol. 14 · issue 1 · p. 125
Publisher
BioMed Central
Cited
104 citations · more than 80% of similar papers · 1.4× the field average
References
74 works
Access
Open access (journal) · CC-BY
Research areas
Nutritional Studies and Diet · Radiation Effects and Dosimetry · Air Quality and Health Impacts
Keywords
Red meat, Prostate cancer, Medicine, Prospective cohort study, Heterocyclic amine, Cancer, Processed meat, Prostate, Cohort study, Internal medicine, Environmental health, Food science, Pathology
MeSH
humans, prostatic neoplasms, iron, amines, heme, diet, risk factors, prospective studies, causality, meat, meat products, male, cooking

2 authors

From US

  • Lauren C. BylsmaMichigan United
  • Dominik D. AlexanderMichigan United

Abstract

Prostate cancer remains a significant public health concern among men in the U.S. and worldwide. Epidemiologic studies have generally produced inconclusive results for dietary risk factors for prostate cancer, including consumption of red and processed meats. We aimed to update a previous meta-analysis of prospective cohorts of red and processed meats and prostate cancer with the inclusion of new and updated cohort studies, as well as evaluate meat cooking methods, heme iron, and heterocyclic amine (HCA) intake exposure data. A comprehensive literature search was performed and 26 publications from 19 different cohort studies were included. Random effects models were used to calculate summary relative risk estimates (SRREs) for high vs. low exposure categories. Additionally, meta-regression analyses and stratified intake analyses were conducted to evaluate dose-response relationships. The SRREs for total prostate cancer and total red meat consumption, fresh red meat consumption, and processed meat consumption were 1.02 (95% CI: 0.92-1.12), 1.06 (95% CI: 0.97-1.16), and 1.05 (95% CI: 1.01-1.10), respectively. Analyses were also conducted for the outcomes of non-advanced, advanced, and fatal prostate cancer when sufficient data were available, but these analyses did not produce significant results. No significant SRREs were observed for any of the meat cooking methods, HCA, or heme iron analyses. Dose-response analyses did not reveal significant patterns of associations between red or processed meat and prostate cancer. In conclusion, the results from our analyses do not support an association between red meat or processed consumption and prostate cancer, although we observed a weak positive summary estimate for processed meats.

Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).

Community trust

Loading…

How much do you trust this study's findings?

0 · not at all10 · completely

Comments

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Something wrong here?

Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Educational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.